Serum concentrations and safety of rimantadine in paediatric patients

Amantadine inhibits platelet-activating factor induced clathrin-mediated endocytosis in human neutrophils

Receptor signaling is integral for adhesion, emigration, phagocytosis, and reactive oxygen species production in polymorphonuclear neutrophils (PMNs). Priming is an important part of PMN emigration, but it can also lead to PMN-mediated organ injury in the host. Platelet-activating factor (PAF) primes PMNs through activation of a specific G protein-coupled receptor. We hypothesize that PAF priming of PMNs requires clathrin-mediated endocytosis (CME) of the PAF receptor (PAFr), and, therefore, amantadine, known to inhibit CME, significantly antagonizes PAF signaling. PMNs were isolated by standard techniques to >98% purity and tested for viability. Amantadine (1 mM) significantly inhibited the PAF-mediated changes in the cellular distribution of clathrin and the physical colocalization [fluorescence resonance energy transfer positive (FRET+)] of early endosome antigen-1 and Rab5a, known components of CME and similar to hypertonic saline, a known inhibitor of CME. Furthermore, amantadine had no effect on the PAF-induced cytosolic calcium flux; however, phosphorylation of p38 MAPK was significantly decreased. Amantadine inhibited PAF-mediated changes in PMN physiology, including priming of the NADPH oxidase and shape change with lesser inhibition of increases in CD11b surface expression and elastase release. Furthermore, rimantadine, an amantadine analog, was a more potent inhibitor of PAF priming of the N-formyl-methionyl-leucyl-phenylalanine-activated oxidase. PAF priming of PMNs requires clathrin-mediated endocytosis that is inhibited when PMNs are pretreated with either amantadine or rimantadine. Thus, amantadine and rimantadine have the potential to ameliorate PMN-mediated tissue damage in humans.

Combating influenza with antiviral therapy in the pediatric population

Influenza viruses are accountable for annual epidemics worldwide that result in significant morbidity and mortality. In preschool and school-aged children, prospective surveillance of influenza demonstrates yearly infection rates of 15-42%. Children can easily transmit the virus to other children, to employees in day-care and school settings, and to family members. Two classes of antiviral drugs, the adamantine derivatives (amantadine, rimantadine) and neuraminidase inhibitors (zanamivir and oseltamivir), have been approved for treatment and prophylaxis of influenza in the pediatric population. Duration of clinical symptoms decreases and daily activities are resumed sooner when therapy is begun within 48 hours of the onset of influenza symptoms. Mechanism of action, adverse effects, and development of resistant variants differ between the two drug classes. To our knowledge, head-to-head clinical trials between the classes and involving the neuraminidase inhibitors are nonexistent. Antiviral agents do not replace the annual influenza vaccine, and clinical trials indicate that amantadine, rimantadine, zanamivir, and oseltamivir are safe and effective for administration in the pediatric population.

Amantadine and equine influenza: pharmacology, pharmacokinetics and neurological effects in the horse

Amantadine is an antiviral agent effective against influenza A viruses. We investigated 1) the antiviral efficacy, 2) analytical detection, 3) bioavailability and disposition, 4) pharmacokinetic modelling and 5) adverse reactions of amantadine in the horse. In vitro, amantadine and its derivative rimantadine suppressed the replication of recent isolates of equine-2 influenza virus with effective doses (EDs) of less than 30 ng/ml. Rimantadine was more effective than amantadine against most viral isolates; we suggest a minimum plasma concentration of 300 ng/ml of amantadine for therapeutic efficacy. In vivo an i.v. dose of amantadine 15 mg/kg bwt produced mild, transient CNS signs which were no longer apparent after 30 min. Amantadine administered at a dose of 15 mg/kg bwt was established as the maximum safe single i.v. dose. However, if repeated i.v. administration of amantadine is required no more than 10 mg/kg bwt t.i.d. should be used. The maximal safe plasma concentration of amantadine was not evaluated but is probably greater than 2000 ng/ml and possibly greater than 4000 ng/ml. On the other hand, horses with lower seizure thresholds, or those on medications that lower seizure thresholds, may be at increased risk of amantadine-induced seizures, which show few premonitory signs and are rapidly fatal. After i.v. administration of amantadine 10 mg/kg bwt, the disposition kinetics were well fitted by a 2-compartment open model. The estimated peak plasma concentration after this dose was about 4500 ng/ml, the volume of distribution at steady-state (Vdss) was (mean +/- s.d.) 4.9 +/- 1.9 l/kg bwt and the beta phase half-life was 1.83 +/- 0.87 h. Computer projections of plasma amantadine concentrations after i.v. administration of amantadine at a dose of 10 mg/kg bwt t.i.d. at 8 h intervals suggest peak plasma concentrations of 4000-5000 ng/ml and troughs of less than 300 ng/ml will be achieved. Amantadine administered orally at 10 mg/kg bwt and 20 mg/kg bwt showed mean oral bioavailability of about 40-60% and a plasma half life of 3.4 +/- 1.4 h; however, there was substantial inter-animal variation in bioavailability. Projections based on the kinetics observed in individual animals suggest that some animals readily maintain effective plasma concentrations of amantadine after oral administration of 20 mg/kg bwt t.i.d. On the other hand, animals in which amantadine is poorly bioavailable may require up to a 6-fold (120 mg/kg bwt) increase in the oral dose to achieve effective blood concentrations. Withholding food for 15 h did not reduce these inter-animal differences in bioavailability. Our results showed that simple dosing with oral amantadine will not yield effective plasma concentrations in all animals. While i.v. administration yielded more reproducible plasma concentrations, care should be taken to see that the seizure threshold is not exceeded. In acute situations, i.v. administration (5 mg/kg bwt) every 4 h should maintain safe and effective plasma and respiratory tract concentrations of amantadine.

Rimantadine: a clinical perspective

OBJECTIVE

To provide a review of rimantadine, including its antiviral activity, pharmacokinetics, efficacy, adverse effects, drug interactions, and dosage and administration. Information on influenza A virus and clinical features of influenza disease are presented. Comparative data on rimantadine and amantadine are described.

DATA SOURCES

A MEDLINE search restricted to English-language literature published from 1966 through 1994 and an extensive review of journals was conducted.

DATA EXTRACTION

The data on antiviral activity, pharmacokinetics, adverse effects, and drug interactions were obtained from various articles on rimantadine in open and controlled studies. Controlled double-blind studies were evaluated to assess the efficacy of rimantadine in prophylaxis and treatment of influenza A infection.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Over 90% of a rimantadine dose was absorbed in 3-6 hours in healthy adults. Steady-state plasma concentrations have ranged from 0.10 to 2.60 micrograms/mL at doses of 3 mg/kg/d in infants to 100 mg twice daily in the elderly. Nasal fluid concentrations of rimantadine at steady-state were 1.5 times higher than plasma concentrations, which may explain the effectiveness of rimantadine despite a low plasma concentration. Over 75% of a rimantadine dose was metabolized in the liver, and the parent compound and metabolites were almost completely eliminated by the kidneys. The elimination half-life ranged from 24.8 to 36.5 hours, which allows once-daily dosing. Dosage adjustment is recommended for patients with severe renal impairment (creatinine clearance < or = 0.17 mL/s), severe hepatic dysfunction, or elderly nursing home patients. Drug-resistant strains of influenza A virus to rimantadine occurred in several studies with children and/or adults. Clinical significance of drug-resistant strains has not been established. Rimantadine appeared to be effective in 85-90% of individuals for prevention of influenza A illness and in 50-65% for prevention of influenza A infection. Rimantadine reduced the time to a 50% reduction in symptoms by 1-3 days versus placebo. Differences in symptom reduction between rimantadine and placebo after the first 3 days of treatment was not generally clinically significant. The most common adverse effects of rimantadine administration were associated with the central nervous system (CNS) and the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. CNS-related adverse effects occurred in 3.2% of children younger than 10 years of age and 8.4% of adults. In elderly patients, the incidence of CNS-related adverse effects ranged from 4.9% at 100 mg/d to 12.5% at 200 mg/d. GI adverse effects occurred in 8.4% of children younger than 10 years of age, 3.1% of adults, and 2.9% at 100 mg/d and 17.0% at 200 mg/d in the elderly.

CONCLUSIONS

Rimantadine offers some desirable features for the treatment and prophylaxis of influenza A infection. It appears to be an attractive choice in elderly patients with a history of CNS adverse effects from amantadine and in patients with mild or moderate renal impairment. Although approved for twice-daily dosing, rimantadine has a pharmacokinetic profile that would allow once-daily dosing. It is effective for prophylaxis (not postexposure prophylaxis) and treatment of influenza A virus. It also has a low incidence of adverse effects.

Variability in clinical pharmacology of drugs in children

Numerous factors can lead to variability in pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, efficacy, and toxicity of drugs in infants and children. These may include age, race or genetic status, organ function, underlying disease(s), drug formulation, concomitant drugs, and compliance with therapy. Further research is needed to clarify the mechanisms for variability in drug response to achieve optimal use of drugs in paediatric patients.

[Rimantadine in the prevention and treatment of influenza A]

Although the antiviral properties of rimantadine specifically directed against influenza A viruses have been known for more than 25 years, this compound has not been widely used owing to its narrow specificity. The drug is active and has low toxicity. It should play a major role in the fight against the medical, epidemiological and economic effects of influenza A, but it can only be used under a number of conditions: accurate identification of the circulating virus and early administration of the drug (these two prerequisites being somewhat contradictory), selection of the right targets (contacts of recognized cases, subjects constantly exposed to contagion, etc.) and respect of certain contraindication. On the other hand, the theoretical advantages of this type of prophylaxis are important: it may limit contagion (morbidity) or at least reduce the severity of the cases (mortality); it may also prevent an epidemic from penetrating the population treated and thus reduce the severity and costs of the epidemic. The therapeutic use of rimantadine has not yet been officially recommended, but it already seems very promising. Rimantadine should be used as an adjuvant treatment, side by side with immunization against influenza which it cannot replace.

Relative bioavailability of rimantadine HCl tablet and syrup formulations in healthy subjects

Twenty healthy male subjects completed an open-label randomized crossover design to assess the bioavailability of 100 mg of rimantadine HCl in tablet and syrup forms relative to an oral solution. Blood samples were drawn and rimantadine plasma concentrations were determined by a GC-MS method. The maximum plasma concentration (Cmax), the time to Cmax (tmax), the area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC), and k were compared among treatments using an analysis of variance and the Hauck-Anderson test for bioequivalence. The Hauck-Anderson test was satisfied when the syrup and solution were compared. The relative bioavailability of the syrup was 96%. Both Cmax and AUC were significantly (p less than 0.05) increased (23 and 17%, respectively) when the tablet was compared with the solution. The relative bioavailability of the tablet was 117%. This outcome was unusual and could not be explained. However, this was not anticipated to be of clinical consequence since the majority of the safety and efficacy of rimantadine HCl was established using a tablet.